God and empty terms
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18 (3):149 - 152 (1985)
| Abstract | This paper is a criticism of Plantinga’s analysis of a version of the ontological argument. He thinks it is obvious that his version is valid and that the only question of interest is whether a key premise is true. The paper lays out two relevant semantical accounts of modal logic. It contends that Plantinga needs to show that one is preferable to the other. | |||||||||
| Keywords | ontological argument Plantinga semantical accounts of modal logic | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRaymond D. Bradley, The Free Will Defense Refuted and God's Existence Disproved. Internet Infidels Modern Library.
Wesley Morriston (1985). Is God “Significantly Free?”. Faith and Philosophy 2 (3):257-264.
Paul E. Oppenheimer & Edward N. Zalta (2007). Reflections on the Logic of the Ontological Argument. Studia Neoaristotelica 4 (1):28-35.
Peter van Inwagen (2009). Some Remarks on the Modal Ontological Argument. Philo 12 (2):217-227.
James Hardy (1996). Burdens of Proof. Journal of Philosophical Research 21:321-330.
Colin P. Ruloff (2004). Plantinga's S5 Modal Argument, Obvious Entailment, and Circularity. Philo 7 (1):71-78.
Chris Heathwood (2011). The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 47:345–57.
William L. Rowe (2009). Alvin Plantinga on the Ontological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (2):87 - 92.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #201,837 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
